I wonder, if the extended family is local, if the public records in the newspaper for births, deaths, crime reports, etc., might turn into an unintended birth announcement if the parents wait more than a week before notifying anyone.

Birth records are published in your local papers? That seems a bit... too much personal information out in the public to me. I mean sure if someone sends in something to be announced, but for the paper to just run it? That seems like a major invasion of privacy!

As public records, they used to be run like that all the time.

The last three places I've lived in have all done this with births (not sure about deaths). Since it's all freely available to anyone as a part of public records, there is no invasion of privacy whatsoever. And people factor it into things anyway, so it doesn't really affect anything in the end.

Births, marriage licenses, and divorces are all announced once a week in my local paper. Every place I've ever lived does this, big city or small town. There is a time lag in the listings, maybe enough time to give the new parents the time they want.

I wonder, if the extended family is local, if the public records in the newspaper for births, deaths, crime reports, etc., might turn into an unintended birth announcement if the parents wait more than a week before notifying anyone.

Birth records are published in your local papers? That seems a bit... too much personal information out in the public to me. I mean sure if someone sends in something to be announced, but for the paper to just run it? That seems like a major invasion of privacy!

As public records, they used to be run like that all the time.

And "getting born" is not really medical information so much as it is legal.

I wonder, if the extended family is local, if the public records in the newspaper for births, deaths, crime reports, etc., might turn into an unintended birth announcement if the parents wait more than a week before notifying anyone.

Birth records are published in your local papers? That seems a bit... too much personal information out in the public to me. I mean sure if someone sends in something to be announced, but for the paper to just run it? That seems like a major invasion of privacy!

As public records, they used to be run like that all the time.

And "getting born" is not really medical information so much as it is legal.

I just never heard of such a thing happening modernly. I know such information was published in the past, I just thought it was no longer done, due to HIPAA. I mean saying "7 babies were born this week", maybe even giving a bit of information "6 were healthy, one was premature and is under observation but expected to be fine". That information about people being born.

But saying "Mary Smith gave birth to a 7lb boy Thursday" is not about the baby being born its about Ms Smith giving birth. Its a slight difference but to me a huge one. The baby's birth is public, legal information, but the mother giving birth is private personal medical information.

But saying "Baby Boy Smith was born this day" is very much public information. A human being now exists and has a legal identity. The fact that his mother had to give birth to do so is not really all that private a piece of information, really. It's simply how it works.

I wonder, if the extended family is local, if the public records in the newspaper for births, deaths, crime reports, etc., might turn into an unintended birth announcement if the parents wait more than a week before notifying anyone.

Birth records are published in your local papers? That seems a bit... too much personal information out in the public to me. I mean sure if someone sends in something to be announced, but for the paper to just run it? That seems like a major invasion of privacy!

As public records, they used to be run like that all the time.

And "getting born" is not really medical information so much as it is legal.

I just never heard of such a thing happening modernly. I know such information was published in the past, I just thought it was no longer done, due to HIPAA. I mean saying "7 babies were born this week", maybe even giving a bit of information "6 were healthy, one was premature and is under observation but expected to be fine". That information about people being born.

But saying "Mary Smith gave birth to a 7lb boy Thursday" is not about the baby being born its about Ms Smith giving birth. Its a slight difference but to me a huge one. The baby's birth is public, legal information, but the mother giving birth is private personal medical information.

HIPAA laws have nothing to do with a newspaper , they address what information a medical professional can release without a patient's permission. I'm assuming if it is in a newspaper then it is because the family wanted it published and it has nothing to do with the hospital, so therefore it doesn't violate any HIPAA laws

In some places, it's in the newspaper because the birth has been entered as a matter of public record, at the courthouse. Where anybody can go look and see who was born, who died, or who was married that week.

I wonder, if the extended family is local, if the public records in the newspaper for births, deaths, crime reports, etc., might turn into an unintended birth announcement if the parents wait more than a week before notifying anyone.

Birth records are published in your local papers? That seems a bit... too much personal information out in the public to me. I mean sure if someone sends in something to be announced, but for the paper to just run it? That seems like a major invasion of privacy!

As public records, they used to be run like that all the time.

And "getting born" is not really medical information so much as it is legal.

I just never heard of such a thing happening modernly. I know such information was published in the past, I just thought it was no longer done, due to HIPAA. I mean saying "7 babies were born this week", maybe even giving a bit of information "6 were healthy, one was premature and is under observation but expected to be fine". That information about people being born.

But saying "Mary Smith gave birth to a 7lb boy Thursday" is not about the baby being born its about Ms Smith giving birth. Its a slight difference but to me a huge one. The baby's birth is public, legal information, but the mother giving birth is private personal medical information.

HIPAA laws have nothing to do with a newspaper , they address what information a medical professional can release without a patient's permission. I'm assuming if it is in a newspaper then it is because the family wanted it published and it has nothing to do with the hospital, so therefore it doesn't violate any HIPAA laws

I was more thinking how would the newspaper get the info - if the parents are delaying in telling anyone, then I was thinking the hospital would have to be releasing the information. Toots however made a good point about the birth being a matter of public record at the courthouse - which would mean the court was releasing the information.

In some places, it's in the newspaper because the birth has been entered as a matter of public record, at the courthouse. Where anybody can go look and see who was born, who died, or who was married that week.

There would probably be a delay in the publication, then ... so if the grandparents were depending on the newspaper announcement, it wouldn't be any faster than the baby's parents calling them after a week.

"I think this is totally a know-your-audience kind of thing. When I had my babies, because they were c-sections, I was in the hospital for about 4 days. I was thrilled to have visitors after the first day, and in fact, my best friend was even there while I was in labor and I was glad to have her as a distraction - at least part of the time."

I totally agree with this! The same thing happened to me. Visting hours would come and go and I'd be like, "People come visit!" But when I got home, the adjustment and the increased getting out of bed for midnight feedings and care and post surgery issues took a toll and I really did not want visitors.

However, I explained this to my husband that I preferred to have visitiors in the hospital rather than coming to our house in the week or 2 after and he completely disagrees with me.

Then tell him he's in charge of providing hospitality for them, which includes entertaining them if you need to tend to baby, nurse him/her, or take a nap.

When DD was born, I had no drugs and felt absolutely fine the next day. (She was born after visiting hours, so none that night.) Other than feeding and changing the baby, I had no responsibilities or chores that needed attention. I had fancy new nightclothes and did my hair and put on make-up each day and waited for the visitors. Most of whom did not come until I came home.

About two hours after we returned from the hospital, the visitors started arriving and the last left about ten that night. At some point I sent DH out for Chinese food. Then we were up most of the night with a baby who did not deal well with the change in scenery.

It was like that for the next month or so. In addition to taking care of DD, I had laundry to do and housework to take care of because I didn't want to appear to be a bad housekeeper. No one brought as much as a coffee cake. For the first week, DH was home and could do a bakery run but then after that I was baking almost daily. People came at lunch time, and I dipped into the supply of meals I had prepared and frozen to carry us through the first weeks. Forget doing my hair and putting on make-up; I considered myself ahead of the game if I had a shower in the morning.

But I was young and stupid and felt very fortunate that so many people loved us and wanted to see our new little one.

I would have much preferred hospital visits that required little to no effort on my part. However, I do have to say that, even with the almost constant stream of visitors, we had no trouble bonding as a family.

I think that the OP is one of the saddest things I have ever read.

AFA newspaper announcements go, when DD was born, the hospital sent the list of births to the newspapers; I still have hers in her baby book. I doubt that many larger hospitals care to spend employees' time to do this today, and since it's not a big profit center, most newspapers here don't print them any longer. The only ones I've seen do this in the past few years are the little local or free papers that want space-fillers.

I just took a look at the Baltimore Sun and the Washington Post and the only birth announcements listed are ones that were put there by the parents themselves. The newspaper does not go and get that information. Parents have to send that information into the paper and it's up to the paper to decide to run it.

So if the OP's friend lives in a major or even medium sized city, I'm guessing that whomever they're trying to prevent from bothering them won't find out from the newspaper.

Let's leave HIPAA out of it please. None of us know for sure how the info is given to the print media (I suspect it's voluntary but I don't know for sure) so there's no point in speculating, especially since that wasn't the point of the post.

Logged

There is no pie in Nighthawks, which is why it's such a desolate image. ~ Happy Stomach

I am an old man and have known a great many troubles, but most of them never happened. ~ Mark Twain

Adopting a pet won't change the world, but it will change the world for that pet.

I just took a look at the Baltimore Sun and the Washington Post and the only birth announcements listed are ones that were put there by the parents themselves. The newspaper does not go and get that information. Parents have to send that information into the paper and it's up to the paper to decide to run it.

So if the OP's friend lives in a major or even medium sized city, I'm guessing that whomever they're trying to prevent from bothering them won't find out from the newspaper.

yeah, city size often makes a huge difference! Big-city papers just don't have room for that, and frankly none of their readers care. In smaller cities or little towns, they care.